The US needs to change policy. Its one-sided support for
armed rebels may condemn Syrians to years of bloodshed

By Jonathan Steele

October 29, 2012 "The
Guardian"
-- The four-day ceasefire that went into effect on
Friday should have been the first good news from Syria for
several months. The initiative came from Lakhdar Brahimi,
the UN and Arab League's special envoy, and was
accepted by Bashar al-Assad's government as well as
several opposition commanders.

Two
Islamist groups rejected it outright and both sides put
conditions on it. The government said it would respond to
rebel attacks and the rebels said the government should not
resupply its troops. The rebels seemed to be particularly
sceptical of any ceasefire since they appear to believe the
military momentum is with them, and they have always been
wary of political negotiations unless Assad first resigns.

Although
ceasefire violations have been numerous, there has been
a slight overall drop in military activity. Reports from
Aleppo suggest the city has been quieter and in other places
people had a brief respite, especially on the first day. UN
agencies, working with the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, had
pre-positioned tons of aid for displaced families and were
able to dispatch two convoys to Homs. Dozens of Syrian civil
society groups have been working to get medicine, food and
blankets to the informal shelters where homeless families
are living in and around Damascus and Aleppo.

Aleppo
has been the focus of terrible recent clashes. It has fallen
victim to the worst destruction of any major city in the
world since 1945. Over a third of its 2 million residents
may have fled. According to Haytham Manna, the head of the
National Co-ordination Body for Democratic Change in Syria,
Aleppo's tragedy began when rebels attacked the city without
having the strength to win it; whole districts were then
destroyed by government counterattacks.

Manna
lives in Paris but the rest of his 25-person executive lead
opposition groups inside Syria. They still believe the best
way to remove the Assad regime is through a ceasefire and a
political settlement that provides for a democratic
transition in which state institutions are reformed, not
destroyed. They condemn the government's indiscriminate use
of air power in built-up areas but are aware of growing
civilian criticism of rebel tactics. Manna even claims to
detect signs of fatigue among the armed opposition.

He and
his colleagues inside Syria consider diplomatic intervention
the only solution. Russia and the US must reach a consensus
to halt arms supplies and put pressure on each side to have
a long-lasting ceasefire. This would be followed by
negotiations between the Syrian parties as well as talks
among Syria's neighbours to guarantee no outside power would
undermine the transition to a new system. It is a tall
order. In their recent debates Romney and Obama produced the
usual formulas that have yielded no breakthrough yet: Assad
must go now, sanctions must be tightened, and
support must increase for the armed opposition while
ensuring weapons only go to "moderates". There was no
mention of ceasefires, the UN, Brahimi, or a political
solution.

On the
Syrian government side there are severe obstacles. The
ceasefire track is not new. Before Brahimi took over Kofi
Annan's team had tried to negotiate truces in Homs, Rustan
and Deir el-Zour. Assad claimed to agree but his generals
vetoed the plans. Since then the regime's security chiefs
have launched air attacks and new massacres in districts on
the edge of Damascus. Now come this weekend's ceasefire
violations. Like some of the rebels, the generals still
believe military victory is possible.

They
have also poisoned the atmosphere for talks, even if it
means snubbing Russia, China and Iran. After Russian
pressure the government allowed Manna's group to hold a
conference in Damascus last month. But the day before it
opened, one of the group's leaders, Abdelaziz al-Khayer, and
two colleagues were detained by troops of the Airforce
Intelligence, the most feared of the security agencies.
Repeated inquiries by Russian, Chinese and Iranian diplomats
have not yet produced their release.

Once
the US election is over, Washington needs to change policy.
One-sided support for the armed opposition condemns Syrians
to months, perhaps years, of bloodshed. A Libya-style
intervention would be a worse escalation. Far better to junk
the failed strategy both candidates followed in last week's
debate and work with Russia and Brahimi on a permanent
ceasefire. Whatever disputes Obama has with Putin on other
issues, he needs to work with the Kremlin on Syria rather
than provoke it.

In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)